Bad News for Breathers?

Photo by urbanfeel, via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/30003006@N00/530910048/">Flickr</a>.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency quietly delayed the release of final rules on ground-level ozone pollution standards, better known as smog. One clean-air group called the delay “a potentially ominous development,” as the agency has been pressured to forgo the new standards.

The agency proposed tough new rules in January, tightening controversial Bush-era regulations that experts believe imperiled public health. But EPA has faced push-back from the industry and a group of senators, who asked the agency to hold off on the new rules. Opponents of the standards argue that it’s only been two years since the Bush administration released the last set of rules, and updates are generally issued every five years (they failed to mention, however, that the Bush rules were far weaker than the agency’s own scientists recommended).

The final rule was supposed to be released at the end of this month; now EPA says it won’t be issued for at least another two months. In a statement, EPA said it still intends to issue a new rule:

EPA remains committed to protecting public health from the dangers of ground-level ozone, a key component of smog. We are continuing to carefully consider the proposed options and the information we received during the public comment period on the January 2010 proposal. There will be a slight delay in finalizing our decision on any new ozone standards. We expect to finalize the standards towards the end of October 2010. We have spoken with the litigants and have updated the court on our status.

But Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, thinks the delay is a bad sign for the rules. “Obviously, we want EPA to make the best possible decision, using the best possible science. But this delay is bad news for breathers,” said O’Donnell. “We can only hope it is a temporary setback, and that the EPA does not bow to political pressure on an issue so significant.”

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate